Review: don’t call the 3G iPod nano fat
Posted by Dennis Sellers 
Oct 23, 2007 at 8:12am
Let me go ahead and say it: the third generation iPod nano is the least impressive product in the revamp of the iPod line-up (except for the shuffle). The touch has some snazzy new features (see my review) and the classic is an incredible value (my review is here).
The 3G iPod nano is cute, but not as cute as its predecessors (or their ancestor, the iPod mini)—but don’t call it “fat,” as some folks have. It offers some snazzy new features in a body that’s amazingly compact considering what it holds. I simply have trouble recommending it as a good value. On the other hand, if style and size (as in small) is of utmost importance, get your checkbook out.
The new iPod nano adds video playback and an enhanced user interface featuring Cover Flow (which lets you flip through graphics of album covers) and a new design. It features a larger two-inch display with 204 pixels per inch, which means you can watch movies, TV shows and music videos in the same resolution of the 5G (video enabled) iPod. The display is purportedly 65 percent brighter than the previous generation.
The video display is okay for watching, say, YouTube videos. However, I found it too cramped for viewing TV shows downloaded from the iTunes Store—and I wouldn’t even think about watching a feature length movie on it. I personally find the screen too small for effectively using Cover Flow, but younger eyes may see it another way.
The iPod nano includes three games (iQuz, Vortex, and Klondike), and additional games can be purchased from the online iTunes Store. However, you have to re-purchase games you’ve previously bought to work with this iPod—or any of the newest models
The 3G nano delivers up to 24 hours of audio playback or five hours of video playback on a single charge, according to Apple—although the one I was test driving actually exceeded the official stats. It’s encased in a new all-metal design made with anodized aluminum and polished stainless steel. It comes in five new colors—silver, black, blue, green and a (PRODUCT) RED special edition.
Music sounds fine on the iPod nano, with no audible system noise. But you’ll want to spring for some earphones; the included chintzy earbuds just don’t cut it.
In the nano’s defense, it’s much less “fat” than the photos suggest. In fact, when you’re up close and personal with it, it’s downright svelte. I personally can’t see spending US$149 for a device that holds 1,000 songs or $199 for an iPod that holds 2,000 when $249 will get you an 80GB classic that holds 20,000 songs and $349 will get you a 160GB iPod classic that can handle up to 40,000 songs. However, if you won’t something more portable than the classic and the touch and has way more storage than the classic, the 3G iPod nano is for you.
Macsimum rating: 7 out of 10
The 4GB iPod nano comes in silver for US$149. The 8GB model is available in silver, black, blue, green and a (PRODUCT) RED special edition for just $199). Both the 4GB and 8GB iPod nano for Mac or Windows are available worldwide immediately through the Apple Store, Apple’s retail stores and Apple Authorized Resellers. All iPod nano models include earbud headphones, a USB to 30-pin cable and a Universal Dock Connector.
The iPod nano requires a Mac with a USB 2.0 port, Mac OS X v10.4.8 or later and iTunes 7.4; or a Windows PC with a USB 2.0 port and Windows Vista or Windows XP Home or Professional (Service Pack 2) or later and iTunes 7.4. Internet access is required and a broadband connection is recommended.
random8r Says:
<shrug> But it *is* fat. It’s fat AND thin… fat as in wide, and thin as in not very thick.
I’ve got one. It replaced my previous generation nano. It’s way better than that.
Much more impressive.
So shut up ;-) lol.
Posted on October 24, 2007
random8r Says:
Plus… you’re kinda missing the point of the nano - the point is its ultra-portability and appropriateness for sports people - try going running with a touch or a classic, and you’ll immediately see what I’m talking about.
Going running with a shuffle is crap if you want to know what song you’re up to or check the time or impossible if you want to use the apple+nike thang.
Posted on October 24, 2007
dominic Says:
well this iPod is good im egtting it tommorow on christmas day =)
i have music and videos ready. i already have a exspect silicone case for it when i saw the size of it i though fuckin hell its small i have been playing with it so i think i will be able to use it safely for pleasure.
Posted on December 24, 2007
Article Information
Comment on this Article Print this Article Email this Article Digg This
Contributor
Dennis Sellers
Dennis has been a newspaper editor/reporter (seven years) and teacher (seven years). He has over 4,000 magazine, newspaper and online articles to his credit. He has also covered the Mac and tech industries for over a decade for such online publications as MacCentral, MacMinute and now MacsimumNews.
Ron Bishop Says:
When you compare a flash drive based iPod to hard drive based iPod you should point out the advantages of flash based in addition to the disadvantages - which you do point out. One advantage is the ability to handle activity. When I run, I use my Nano and the Nike + iPod. I wouldn’t recommend using a hard drive based iPod for exercise - plus Nike + iPod only works with the nano;)
I don’t need my entire library on my iPod. I won’t listen/watch to that much at any given time. Anyway, I sync it every day since I subscribe to numerous podcasts and TV shows. The Nano is ideal for that.
And for the beginning price of $149, I have an iPod I can hook up to the office projector and watch The Office during lunch; or to a portable DVD player in the car and watch 10+ episodes of Scooby Doo on the way to the grandparents…
I can use the $100 I save on music or video from iTunes:)
For the same price as it’s predecessor, Apple has doubled the storage, added video and made it easier to fit in my pocket. That’s pretty sweet. The new nano is a winner - I guess that’s why it’s consistently the number one selling iPod
Posted on October 23, 2007